We have no right to happiness by C.S. Lewis

An analysis of We have no right to happiness by C.S. Lewis

We have no right to happiness by C.S Lewis emphasizes that every human being deserves happiness. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we should pursue our happiness regardless of other issues. I disagree with arguments that human beings ought to be selfish so as to realize their goals. Therefore, there is need to create some balance between what makes us happy and what we want. In addition, we should not also burden ourselves for others to be happy. Often in our lives, we have encountered people who believe they are either happy or not.

Nevertheless, having no right to happiness does not essentially mean that everybody in the world should be miserable. Generally, people tend to know how to be happy but often feel dissatisfied with their lives.  The society that we exist in today, clouds our thoughts that we do not have enough rights to undertake a lot of things in our lives. This analysis bases on C.S Lewis article “We have no right to happiness’’ and more so the decision that Mr. A and Mrs. B took to pursue personal happiness.

We also look at the dilemmas where in some situations that some people have to forfeit their happiness so that others can be happy, all in attempt to justify that there are situations where we have to pursue our happiness with total disregard to other pertinent issues. The article presents a situation where a person A divorces person B so as to get married to another person C, who also got a divorce from person D. A and B were somehow unhappy similarly were C and D, A and C are very happy together as a couple and seemingly meant for each other.

Furthermore, they have a right and maybe a duty to pursue all avenues and choose any path that guides them to realizing their happiness. This is not just to focus on personal happiness but also to benefit humanity at large. In the article, Lewis alleges that people around the globe do not have a right to happiness. First, it is funny that human beings often misconstrue themselves with imaginations that they have the right to undertake all that makes them happy. Even though various constitutions have bequeathed various rights to human beings, the reality still remains far from the constitutional writings.

A basic example is our classes whereby our opinions and affiliations should not affect our grades. This is proof enough that the world seems to have a specific setting to have people feel unhappy with limitations to them speaking up their minds. There is certainly no equalizers in most nations which seems to agree with Lewis arguments that indeed we do not have a right to be happy and mostly this is due to the world not creating an environment that fosters happiness.

There is need for balance in human life so as to allow individuals to pursue personal happiness. One huge confusion for some people is that they can commit murder, steal or rape because allegedly, we can do anything that leads to our happiness without consequences. Limitations ought to exist as with regards to what makes us happy like pursuing positive and good things as opposed to negative things which cannot be justified as pursuant to someone’s happiness. Pursuing happiness via good ways comes with some self-satisfaction as opposed to doing it via bad ways.

Secondly, the fact that Mr. B wanted to simply divorce her spouse because of not finding her sexually attractive anymore is ridiculous. Of course even within our own societies there are men who actually do this to their wives. There should be a balance of happiness of all involved parties, it could have been more prudent for Mr. B to simply approach his wife and speak to her honestly about it, giving her a chance to first salvage the situation and change her appearance, before taking such a dire step of seeking divorce. Honest if critical to relationship, and if Mr. B found her partner unattractive anymore, chances are very high that the next partner would also face a similar situation.

Sadly, this is a major cause of many divorces in America today. Married couples just like Mr. B forget what made them marry each other and how communication was key while dating. It is evident that Mr. B was selfish and only considered his personal temporary happiness, neglecting the happiness of his wife. When couples have a long lasting happiness, it not simply because of exclusivity but more due to loyalty, communication, trust and control over themselves. I therefore, differ with Lewis arguments that it is indeed right to divorce so as to seek self-happiness especially given how the author brought out Mr. B and his mistress.

Lastly, the right to happiness seems as funny as the right to luck. Depending on what moralists say, most of us rely or happiness or misery largely on circumstances that are beyond our control. Right to happiness is vague to some extent especially for cases where for instance someone draws his/her happiness from height, weight or skin complexion. Regardless, we still wish that certain things beyond our control should be within our control, making as to always to strive for a way where we can manipulate systems in our favor.

Everybody wants to define their own morality and hold onto whatever contributes to their happiness. We may feel that we deserve something despite costs or consequences. That persons B and D might have had a different feeling regarding the dissolution of their separate marriages as did Persons A and C. Persons A and C seem to be sure about their need for happiness unlike persons B and D. This exposes something about how humanity operates. In most cases, we plead to God to stop all the greed, madness, theft and lying among other bad characters by compelling humanity to act accordingly.

 Marriage is a commitment that unlike relationships or dating is much more serious. Often it is assumed that prior to marriage, both parties have over time cumulatively learnt to co-exist together, acknowledging each other’s pros and cons. Attractiveness also fades over time perhaps with variables such as age, it is thus insane for anybody to use it as an excuse for happiness. What if it reaches a time that the mistress also becomes unattractive?

Generally, as Lewis wanted to draw the attention of his audiences to about it being a process that can only be achieved when personal interests are not founded on themselves but also those around them. The author sends out a clear message to readers using the articles title so as to seek their opinions right from the start. Obviously, happiness is key to everybody, but the reality is quite different. Some people still feel defenseless specifically when it comes to their rights. I differ with Lewis’s argument that we have no right to happiness as basing on individual’s life’s, happiness can be found through several avenues.

Therefore, it was wrong for Mr. A to leave his wife on the pretext of not being beautiful anymore. Furthermore, Mrs. B should also not have left her husband, after losing everything. Nevertheless, how the author presented the story seems intended to convince audiences that the two are bad people. Justifying their behavior with the right to happiness claims seems obsolete. Even though the writer brought them out badly in the article, there is not sufficient evidence to justify their actions. Going forward, they may still find themselves in the same situation and divorce each other again, as life gives no guarantees.

Also Read..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top